On Academy Awards night, the moment just before the announcement of the Best Picture winner is always, of course, intensely dramatic — even if it’s one of those years when it has become obvious, by the end of the night, which film is going to win (hello The Sting, Gandhi, The Silence of the Lambs, Titanic). But the Oscars can be even more dramatic if you have no clear idea what’s going to win (hello Annie Hall, Driving Miss Daisy, Crash). And the years, to me, when they have the most drama are those in which the competition for Best Picture is dominated by two front runners, and each one of those movies stands for something radically different within the Hollywood cosmos. Then you have a horse race charged with meaning.
To me, the last Academy Awards year that really had that full-on, King Kong vs. Godzilla culture-war vibe was 1994, when the competition boiled down to Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction. The fact that Quentin Tarantino’s jubilantly violent and head-twisty independent-cinema landmark had zoomed to the front ranks of the Academy Awards derby was enough to electrify the evening all by itself. Clearly, this was an acknowledgement, by the Hollywood establishment, that the indie movement was no longer just a bunch of eager rude upstarts but that it had truly arrived, and was a force to be reckoned with. But, of course, the Hollywood establishment doesn’t tend to like eager rude upstarts who rewrite the rules of their business. And so it was poetically perfect that the movie Pulp Fiction was competing against was Forrest Gump, a sentimental patriotic afflicted-hero fairy tale that seemed, in many ways, to be a kind of crowd-pleasing candy box of “mainstream” values.
That night at the Oscars, in the spring of 1995, it wasn’t just one big-hit movie facing off against another. With Forrest Gump taking on Pulp Fiction, it was square vs. street, classic-rock boomer fantasy vs. surf-rock Gen-X reality, Establishment vs. Outsider — and, since both films had gone on to become cultural touchstones, it was, in effect, a battle over the question of which mythological movie Hollywood would most like to represent its core values. Perhaps it’s no surprise that, Hollywood being Hollywood, the establishment candidate won. By contrast, the famous Best Picture moment that left a bewildered daze on Harrison Ford’s face — the surprise victory by Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan — may well have been as dramatic as they come, but not because the two films really represented competing, which is to say conflicting, values. It was a dramatic upset that signified…nothing.
I predict that the Oscar race this year will have a similar symbolic heft to the one in 1994/1995. First of all, my premise is that the Best Picture race will probably come down to two movies — and let me take just a moment to explain why. Dave Karger, in his very shrewd analysis, has already listed what he thinks the Best Picture nominees would be if there were only five of them (Up in the Air, Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, and Precious). Out of those five, I think that Inglourious Basterds, fantastic as it is, will be seen as a kind of grateful-to-be-there, come-from-behind nominee; it’s far too naughty and reckless a movie, with too little collective critical support, to have much of a chance for nabbing Best Picture. Precious, it has become increasingly clear, may well have peaked too early, and The Hurt Locker, while it keeps racking up awards and does have that collective critical support, wasn’t a big enough hit, at least by the classic yardstick of Hollywood history, to be a likely Best Picture winner. I do think that Kathryn Bigelow could take home the Best Director prize, but my instinct tells me that the Best Picture award will probably go to a movie that’s perceived, in raw Darwinian box-office terms, as “bigger.”
That leaves Up in the Air vs. Avatar. And to me, at least, that’s a very, very symbolic race. In this case, though, it’s not Establishment vs. Outsider. It’s Old School script-driven Classic Hollywood vs. New Age post-script 21st Century Entertainment. Up in the Air is a movie of such nimble wit and craftsmanship, and such timely humanity, that it has been compared, often and justly, to the venerable films of the studio system — the screwball comedies, for instance, that were rooted in clockwork elegant screenplays, incandescent star performances, and a certain tossed-off (but, deep down, rigorously achieved) insouciance. Whereas Avatar is the eye-popping techno spectacle of the Now era: a vision so “revolutionary” that it leaves many of those pesky old-fashioned story elements behind, but (at least according to its adherents, who are legion) more than makes up for that by placing the audience directly inside an organic wonder-world, using technology to return fabulistic awe to the big screen. I may be mixed on Avatar myself, but to me that certainly sounds like a potential prescription for Oscar victory. Especially now that the jaw-dropping success of Avatar has sealed the film’s promise as a preview — and a savior — of the movie industry to come.
I don’t claim to have a clue as to how the kremlinology of this year’s voting procedures will influence all of this. But if I’m indeed right about these two films becoming the front runners, what I do know is that each one, on Oscar night, will represent a radically different, even opposed, set of dramatic/aesethetic/pop-cultural values. And so the voting, as it always does, will inevitably reflect what the majority of the Hollywood establishment has chosen as a symbol of its values. In more ways than you can count, it’s the past versus the future.
I still can’t stomach the idea of Avatar as a Best Picture nominee solely on the basis of its spectacular eye candy. If that were all that was necessary to make a movie great, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen would be on the list as well. Bleurgh.
That’s what I keep thinking.
The fact that Avatar is up for the nomintation and Transformers is not should tell you that Avatar is more than just eye candy. The movie worked for the majority of viewers and film critics. A lot people hating here have not even seen the movie. The movie deserves the nomination and the haters are just going to have deal with it.
JC is just a master and deserves the awards unlike Bay
Ha… let me just say this: Michael Bay is a James Cameron wannabe. Pearl Harbour was his reaction to Titanic and guess what? It bombed, no pun intended. Bay wants to be Cameron SO bad that he’ll make Cameron movies without the details that are necessary to make it interesting or believable in the first place. And that is why Avatar is getting best pic consideration and tripe like Transformers is not. Neither did The Island, another stellar Bay masterpiece.
i can’t believe the most recycled, trite, unapologetically pointless ‘Up in the Air’ has drawn comparison to ‘Pulp Fiction’ as the underdog-going-against-the-grain-of the-great-hollywood-machine. Systematically, the Academy disregards fantastic achievements in Action and Comedies (and Action-Comedies (Hot Fuzz, anyone)) so that it can spit out nominations for the same off-center, montage-ridden garbage to trick people into thinking that these movies are great achievements, when in reality they are just marketed that way. Juno’s push just a few years ago doesn’t seem familiar? Avatar went AGAINST the Hollywood machine – innovation over sure profitability. An original IP over Terminator 4. The machine is what gives us Transformers 2, not Jaws, Alien, Gladiator, and Titanic.
avatar was so boring, transformers may have not have been a great film but at least i liked it. i admit avatar is stunning and dont care if it wins but up in the air was a much better film.
@ jose:
I thought it was more comparing avatr to pulp fiction and up in the air to Forrest Gump. But either way the article says that it’s a totally different cultural battle than that one. Read more than the title next time.
I just got back from seeing it. I was excited to see it. I was surprised at how intensely I hated it. Other than the stunning visuals, every aspect seemed recycled from other movies. So many contrivances. The smash-you-over-the-head ‘and the moral of the story IS…’. Terrible writing. Not one character was interesting. In no way is this movie BP material.
I think Transformers 3 will win the Oscar next time
Avatar’s vision is revolutionary. The technology is amazing. The environmental message is clear. The love story is touching. It deserves the Best Picture AWARD!
UITA is a great movie, but Avatar is a original/revolutionary film that comes around once in a generation. There is no question that Avatar was the best film made this year.
So many of you are bringing up Transformers as being a oscar worthy film. Far from it; the acting in Avatar is, by far, better, as are the special effects. As great as Avatar was, however, the plot was pretty basic, aside from the technology and the planet. You were expecting him to betray the milts. You were expecting that he would almost die. The preformances were great, however Up in the Air, in my opinion, deserves the oscar
That is a very narrow-minded viewpoint. Film is more than one of its’ parts. Under that logic, a film that is well-written but looks bland or drab shouldn’t be nominated either. It is clear that many think the story for Avatar IS good and engaging. Is the story archetypal? Absolutely. So is Star Wars’, The Wizard of Oz’s or many others. Should those films be considered less than valid? Most would say no. Pushing forward the look of cinema is just as important as pushing the language of it. To say that Avatar and Transformers are the same because they have eye candy is ridiculous. Nobody was analyzing the deeper meanings of the story for TF2 like they are for Avatar. Up in the Air is a quality film, but it also has tropes that have been seen before in movies like The Family Man. Are those films the same? Avatar irrevocably belongs in the Best Picture discussion.
perfectly stated q.
Avatar doesn’t belong in the BP conversation because it’s a horrible movie. Roll your eyes if you like, but some of us like stories with our eye candy and on that front Avatar implodes under the weight of its own self-importance. It’s Dances With Wolves in Space. Whoopee!
A story can be simple and archetypal and still be moving as long as it’s told in an engaging way with fully developed characters – the original Star Wars trilogy is a good example. On the other hand you have movies where the story is OVERsimplified in favor of dazzling effects and just doesn’t leave you feeling like there was any substance under all the bombast. This is where Avatar (and the Star Wars prequels) lie.
I am sorry, Rebecca, but the characters in the original Star Wars film are not fully developed. They are types. A callow youth. A pirate. A princess. A mentor. A villain. It wasn’t until Empire that they gained some depth. Strip A New Hope of its’ visuals and the story is pretty threadbare.
How is Avatar and Dances the same? Other then Na’vi= Whatever Nation in Dances, the story lines were pretty different…and unless your speaking Cree south of the boarder I think the endings are totally different.
Q, who exactly is analyzing the deeper meanings of Avatar? You? Definitely not me, anyone else I know that saw the film, and pretty much every article I’ve read on the film since its been seen. Matter of fact, most articles I read about the movie are about the lack of depth that the movie exhibits. That’s also the same sentiment I’m getting out of my friends and colleagues. I’m not suggesting that its a bad film by any stretch (I was engrossed and entertained and didn’t once look at my watch), but surely we can not ignore the widely held view that the movie is reductive, derivative and rather shallow in its intent.
“It’s Dances With Wolves in Space”, wow mark, what an origonal critique. I have NEVER heard that comparison before. You really should have also mentioned smirfs, at least that is still a funny comparison even after it has been overkilled, backed up, and then run over again.
And with that, I propose we all submit the funniest ORIGONAL critiques we’ve heard of Avatar.
My pick- “I loved Fern Gully, now we have a version for adults!”
that mad me laugh soo hard durring Avatar!
Loved the movie btw
Avatar for best picture!!!
it story is completely unoriginal( white guy is sent after natives, falls in love then joins natives) thats the story.
@Chris: All you have to do is type Avatar in Google to see hundreds of articles from liberals, conservatives and those inbetween who are trying to figure out the film’s stance on many issues. Similar words were written about The Dark Knight and Lord of the Rings. Such stories are not created for the average vapid blockbuster. Scientists are dissecting the viability of Cameron’s creation and saying it isn’t that much of a stretch. I’m not discrediting the opinion of you or others, no single film is perfect or universally beloved, but Avatar has far more depth than GI Joe, Fast and Furious, Ninja Assassin and countless other action films.
What’s with all the Dances With Wolves love all of a sudden. That movie wasn’t original either. A Man Called Horse predates Dances With Wolves by 20 years and that film has a similar premise. So what’s the point?
YAY my thoughts exactly. What makes a good movie? Is it deep characterization, subtlety, grand acting? Can’t it also be “WOW I was blown away and seriously entertained!”. I think Avatar has reshaped (again) why people go to the movie theatre. There simply wasn’t time to explore more characters or expand the story to be more than one-dimensional.
avatar was made to look good and thats pretty much it. I was amazed at what i saw on the screen but not amazed enough to put it up for best picture. I think that it will be between the hurt locker and up in the air. I dont care what ew predicts the hurt locker was the whole shabang.
“Dances With Wolves” is a Best Picture Oscar winner, BTW
I agree with Q. Avatar is far from perfect. It is simple. But movies were not created to show enormous depth. They became what they are today as carnival entertainment. Sure, depth and symbolism count a great deal. But let us not forget what we’re dealing with. Film is an art form designed to entertain and show us things we can hardly believe. I have no trouble accepting Up in the Air. In fact, I’m willing to believe it could be happening now. It doesn’t stimulate imagination. Avatar does.
anyone who liked avatar is just a fool for exquisite marketing. the 15 minute trailer they’ve been showing the past year, was better than the 3 hours spent in the theater. The studios plan on pushing this film hard so people all over the world flock the first couple weeks–making there mondey back, but this film will have no staying power. I mean can you picture anyone buying this to watch over and over again–ick. can anyone decide for themselves anymore? or do we need advertising to tell us what’s good?
um…Greg? Since you wrote this on Jan 6th you could have checked this for yourself but Avatar did NOT have the best opening weekend in history … not by a long shot … but the attendance went UP in the second week (on word of mouth) and its second weekend is the best in history …. and it’s third weekend is BY FAR the best in history, virtually no drop off from the stupendous second. “No staying power?” Were you being intentionally ironic?
You sound young so maybe you weren’t around in 1977 when the last film this transformative came out … these past three weeks feel like May, 1977 all over again … that would be when Star Wars came out for all you youngsters (I believe you are called “newbies” now)
Same thoughts here. When I think of all the great movies that won that award, it drives me insane that Avatar could even be considered. It’s confirming my thoughts that 10 nominees is just a bad idea. The film may not have been trash like Transformers, it was fine, but it was SO NOT Best Picture material
How about some of the bad ones? – Like Chicago, and Crash.
Chicago? What?!?! that movie absolutely deserved it, crash was definitely divisive, but I can see why it got it
Are you kidding? Chicago – bad?
Yes. Chicago – Bad. How it beat Lord of the Rings, The Pianist, and Gangs of New York I’ll never know.
false
When I think of all the films that won BP in the past 20 years, I think…Who Cares? Who won in 1992? Don’t Know and I probably didn’t see it. Most nominees are from the same cookie cutter mode and have little meaning outside of Hollywood. The last year I even watched was Return of the King. That embodied everything stunning that a movie should be. Brokeback should have won because it had the same stunning quality. Up should be nominated but probably won’t be. Hollywood hates to look outside its own box at films that deserve to be nomibnated and win. So as much as I love sci fi and didn’t like Avatar, it had that same stunning effect. Up In the Air…wont see it. Ingloourious Basterds…hate Tarentino. He only knows how to do blood.
Shakespeare in love was bad
bet you’re bad in science that’s why you hated the movie! avatar deserves to win the best picture award. only genius like cameron can make a good movie like that. adding more to that you can get a lot of lessons in the movie: humans are greedy- proven by the fact they put nature at stake just to pursue their selfish intents. if you’re updated in astronomy, cameron’s story might have a possibility in the future. he didn’t just made a shallow story like you say people, there’s a lesson to it, you can’t see it because you people are like those villains in the story – no heart, no compassion, shallow personality (like parker and col quaritch).
Mark, Up will be nominated. 10 best picture nominees guarantees it pretty much. it won’t win, but it will be nominated.
and your analysis on QT is absolutely retarded
Chicago winning best pic was a travesty, but not nearly to the degree that Shakespeare (when was the last time you heard someone say anything at all, let along something positive, about Shakespeare In Love? Or Driving Miss Daisy winning best pic and Do The Right Thing isn’t even nominated…not to mention the 4 movies it beat that night were “Born on the Fourth of July”, “Dead Poets Society”, “Field of Dreams”, “My Left Foot”. All 4 are much better than Driving Miss Daisy, the epitome of trite and predictable.
I hope Avatar not only wins, but I hope it goes Return of the King on everyone else and wins a ton of Oscars. The only other movie I hope gets a few awards is Inglourious Basterds. At the very least I’d like to see Waltz win best supporting actor.
I doubt Up will be nominated for best pic, since it’s a lock for Best Animated Feature.
“Tarantino only knows how to do blood”…..Wow. Maybe the single, dumbest, and least articulate criticism of all time. You should be proud man. That’s quite an achievement, given the amount of mindless drivel posted every second all over the Earth by mouthbreathers every day…
The story fails to mention that in the “Forrest Gump” year “The Shawshank Redemption” was also nominee and didn’t win.
“The Shawshank Redemption” is considered one of the best movies in the world (imdb #1 at the moment with almost half a million votes)….
Sorry, Chicago was a great picture. Yes, the LOTR was better but the Academy was hamstrung by the fact that it was really one movie in three parts and they couldn’t tie up three years of rewards on one movie. That’s why ROTK was given the “Ben Hur” treatment and won so many rewards – it was about all three films. In that context I have no issue with Chicago winning. It was a brilliant re-invention of the filmed musical. I’m the biggest JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson fan you will find. And I love Chicago. Deserved.
Shakespeare in Love was a FUN movie, exceptional, one of the best made that year. Simply doesn’t measure up with Saving Private Ryan in importance, gravitas, emotional impact. Shakespeare in Love was a creative jewel. It will be watched and enjoyed for years to come. Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece that will be one of the definitive statements on WWII. To me the BP Oscar was one of the greatest mistakes (top three) the Academy ever made. It devalues the “Best Picture” canon, reminds us that Academy members vote “Best Picture” for reasons other than it’s the “Best Picture.”
Despite all that, I recommend Shakespeare in Love to
any one who hasn’t seen it and defy you to finish it without a smile on your face.
Chicago did NOT desserve best picture, but it was probably another divided vote. 10 movies will only divide the vote more!!!
You people who are so wrapped up in the Oscar BP race fail to realize an important thing and that is the continued downward spiral into irrelevance that is the Oscars. Who cares who wins? the Academy has no vision when it comes to celebrating movies. Let Up In The Air take it’s victory lap…ten years from now NO ONE will care about it while Avatar will have heralded an new age of moviemaking.
Agreed, I think this is the future of films if Hollywood wants to keep people coming to the theaters.
I do appreciate smaller movies, I just wait for them to come out on pay per view or dvd, no need to shell out the ticket prices.
Hollywood needs to wake up and get a clue about what kind of “product” people will pay big bucks to see, otherwise just make a deal to distribute smaller films thru Net Flicks.
new way of movie making? how many of these could they do? who will be your favorite blue actor/actress in the years to come? I wish I were blue with a tail. I can’t wait until we can get ten blue cartoons a year. too bad it takes 10 years to make one
I don’t understand the comment about the “downward spiral into irrelevance that is the Oscars,” relative to the Best Picture award. This statement implies ignorance of what the Oscars actually signify.
The BP Oscar is more a statement of US and WHO WE ARE AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME than a dictum of the finest work created that year. It encapsulates the moment. I mean come on, Annie Hall is the Best Picture of 1977? Over Star Wars? In the fullness of history we see how ridiculous that was. But the truth is in 1977 Annie Hall represented that moment in time much better than Star Wars did. Star Wars was the future (as Richard Schickel at Time Magazine realized when he called it “the Year’s Best Movie” – in MAY!!). Star Wars created the future of film from 1978 forward. But Annie Hall was a perfect mirror of 1977. That’s the analogy to this year. Up in the Air is 2009 encapsulated. Avatar is the future. Which do you reward?
I don’t know what kinda crazy place Rebecca lives in to think that Avatar and Transformers are the same quality movie, but I want to go to there.
Looks alone shouldn’t win a film the Academy Award (amazing, though it is). The story and script are some of the most important elements (some would argue the most) of a film… and Avatar’s script is nowhere near Oscar-caliber.
So you’re saying that the only way a movie to be considered best picture is for it to be considered for best screenplay. Well, even the best screenplay can be turned into a s**y movie if done improperly.
The best movie is exactly that; the best movie. One that can make someone feel and think as well as being entertaining and engaging. It is the movie that has the greatest accomplishments in technical and presented aspects. So that goes from the special effects and editing to the acting and directing. And for the first time in my life, all the movies I’m hearing for Best Picture are movies I believe have all of those qualities, and mostly in Avatar. Avatar is a great movie, as is Up in the Air. Transformers 2 is NOT a great movie and doesn’t deserve to be compared to Avatar. Period and end of discussion.
i agree.. you should compare transformers to avatar! while watching transformers i was bored because of the shallow stroy.. while watching avatar, i didn’t notice the time, i was stunned by the story. the story’s amazing, it has lots of lessons to learn. only shallow persons could not understand the real lesson of the story of avatar. it’s beyond effects, it’s the lesson that’s important. plus, if you know astronomy, you would be really interested in watching the movie, because avatar’s story could happen in the future. i hate sci-fi movies, i didn’t had fun watching lord of the rings, nor star wars because the story sucked, they’re out of reality, so there’s no point in watching the movie. but avatar, opened my eyes for everything beyond earth. cameron didn’t just made up the story, he trained in nasa before he made the script. AVATAR’S THE MOVIE OF THE DECADE.!
We’re talking Best Picture here. That means you should bring it all to the table, not just one great aspect and several other average ones. It should be greater than the sum of its parts. Yeah Avatar looks great. But it also has its shortcomings with story and script, and just because the Cult Of Avatar wants the movie to be appreciated by everybody doesn’t mean it is Best Picture caliber.
Chris, I thought the story and script worked beautifully in service of the picture. I don’t see shortcomings in either, I see a clarity and focus that allows the other aspects of the film to also shine — exactly as you say, a whole greater than its parts.
You know, before this discussion I was torn between Up in the Air vs. Avatar as Best Picture. But reading the comments from others really clarifies for me that as a film best representing 2009, who we are, where we are, and what we can do, Avatar is the one for me. Don’t get me wrong – Up in the Air is brilliant. But let’s look forward.
agree, and i just want to say i did not have that WOW factor from Avatar that was with Star Wars – i first saw SW in 1997 so the effects clearly were not what made it great for me but the culmination of a simple but engrossing adventure – Avatar is just flash – period. I personally think Up (pixar) and where the wild things are deserve best picture.
BOO!
Stephanie, “Up” and “Where The Wild Things Are” for best picture? What are you, ten years old?
Up is not a 10 year old movie. It has wisdom, a message, and even a profound sadness to it PLUS it was visually beautiful (all things people are saying Avatar should win for) You lose.
Up and Wild Things are good. Avatar was like a toy commercial.
AVATAR is one of those movies that comes along once in a lifetime. The charachters, the story, the special effects, are all above and beyond Pandora!
hopefully only once–but sadly i doubt it
Star Wars was eye-candy and a good story. That’s all you need to be great. Don’t worry there are other 9 slots you can agree with.
i loved the effects, but dialogue wise was, eh
I wasnt the biggest fan of avatar and i agree that it is eye candy but compare it to transformers revenge of the fallen, thats just wrong. That’s like compareing saveing privet ryan to gigli
Listen the difference is that Avatar used its effects to tell a very moving and emotional classical story where as Transformers is just stupid ugly noise. C’mon now be mature and grow up, maybe learn something about film
Avatar is the best movie ever made. Period. No use comparing to anything before or after. History will be divided into BA and AA.
Really, Crispy, that’s too sweeping. I love Avatar and truly believe it is in the realm of the handful of game-changing films ever made. But to say it is better than Citizen Kane? Casablanca? The Bridge on the River Kwai? The subjects and genres are too different.
The Wizard of Oz is probably the closest analogy to what you’re suggesting. Pre- WoOZ the films were black and white, while post WoOZ they were mostly color. I suppose it’s possible that Avatar will represent a similar transition point to 3-D films.
Not to say it’s not the best film of 2009. I think it probably is. But it’s not the best ever made.
um..there were colors represented on film about twenty years prior to the release of the “wizard of oz”. a fellow in california came up with the coloring process and applied it to his travel docs. some smart-type folks perfected the science, making it less costly and easier on the eyes, and started a little company called technicolor that pretty much had a stranglehold on the entire color-treatment industry for most of the 30′s and 40′s. and most movies were black and white for another decade-and-a-half after the release of the original wiz. heck, even disney cartoons were colorized by 1932, a whole seven years before that aforementioned judy garland pic.. so you pretty much don’t know what you’re talking about, but it’s cool, ’cause most people don’t..not that i’m a know-it-all either. and “annie hall” is a way way way better movie than “star wars”. and “avatar”.
You mean best of it’s kind right? Suposing both of Golden Globe’s Best Pictures, Avatar and The Hangover, were nominated for Best Picture? Is there a chane that they will split the Golden Globe vote?
Exactly. Avatar was quite entertaining and very innovative, but I’m going to freak out if it gets any serious awards (i.e., writing, directing, acting, Best Picture). The script, story and acting were all quite shoddy, and the overall themes were highly derivative. Special effects were awesome, but a movie needs far more than that to be considered great.
Are you complaining about Avatar being bad, because as a movie it was pretty good, not just “eye-candy.”
Although I loved Avatar I think it shouldn’t be nominated at all. Oke it’s revolutionary but take away the 3d and you have a crappy movie. I don’t think you can drive a movie on just 3d, all the elements have to fit perfectly and with avatar that wasn’t the case.
Actually I saw it in 3D and then in 2D and it maintained its spectacle. It isn’t a film that’s just good in one format.
I agree…I think people are citing the “simple storyline” as a negative, when in fact creating a film with a simple yet effective storyline is one of the most difficult things to do. This is a film for the ages (not just because of the revolutionary 3D). I connected with the story and I thought that the concept of a man in a wheelchair operating the body of an avatar was fantastic. This script is much deeper than people give it credit for.
No it manages to be bad in multiple formats.
Mark, please tell us specifically what you found to be unsatisfying about Avatar? Don’t just hate indiscriminately. Give us your true opinion and try to support it.
The dialogue was terrible, the characters were bland and one-dimensional, and the story was top-heavy with its message. Personally, I didn’t find the “organic world” to be all that amazing, but I can understand why others would. That being said, the strong visuals shouldn’t matter if the audience isn’t given a reason to care about them. And I wasn’t.
If this is the future of cinema, when the story or writing can suck in lieu of showy special effects, then I’m terrified.
The dialogue was terrible? I though it was quite good. There is power in the spare, clean, direct way of speaking. In the way Hemingway is brilliant. I think having a grunt like Jake speak as he did, and giving the Na’vi a simple clear diction, clarifies rather than detracts from the film.
Well for other people, Avatar works and not just because of the 3D. And since you are not in the academy, your opinion does not determine who is worthy or not. It will get its much deserved nomination. If your don’t like it, you will have to deal with it.
TJ and @TJ didn’t see Avatar. They’re just jealous haters waving their pompoms for Transformers.
Jane: and if it doesn’t get nominated, or doesn’t win can “your” deal with it?
Mike: Disliking Avatar does not equivocate loving Transformers. Where the hell did you come up with that? And if they are jealous haters, you are a rabid fanboy who can’t see past his own opinion.
I’ve seen the movie, it was good, and entertaining. But def not Best friggin’ Picture. Would you nominate any of the actors for Best Performance? Unlikely. How about best screenplay? I doubt it. If a movie can’t deliver memorable characters or an engaging story beyond a watered-down cliché, then it only has its looks to stand on. And looks alone should not deserve a Best Picture. And I’m a handsome guy, I should know
The only cliche I see is a hater who doesn’t know what equivocate means.
at @chris.
Ohohoho, did Chris hurt your pwetty wittle movie’s feelings?
The fanboys for Avatar almost makes it seem they were masturbating furiously while watching it or something.
Sorry Chris, you don’t have to be the best at any individual category to the be the best at all categories combined. It’s called synergy, culmination, “the whole being better than the sum of the parts.” Ask Bruce Jenner, he should know!
Not to mention that beyond all the fantasy and CGI, Avatar is an epic in the vein of other Best Picture winners like Braveheart, Gladiator, and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Epics don’t always win, but they do lend themselves by striving to be something grand.
Also, for the Avatar-haters, I’m not saying that Avatar is equivalent to a movie that I love so dearly as Lord of the Rings. What I mean is that, when it is critically denounced as only eye-candy, a technological film, people forget that beyond the OK dialogue is an epic plot as old as storytelling, and that’s appealing.
I think anyone hating on Avatar must also have completely ignored how good Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver were… as well as the main bad guy. There was some great acting by these actors- which is even more impressive given that the dialog they had to act off of was only ok.
Avatar takes you to a world more than almost any other movie I can think of.
Sure, the rest is great but not amazing. But like you said, the plot is classic, not exactly cliche.
Who cares how “epic” the plot is? If the execution is subpar, it doesn’t really matter who ambitious the plot was. The visuals were EXTRAORDINARY. It was worth the ticket price just for that but that doesn’t necessarily make a film great. I suffered a bit through some of the dialogue and some of the acting because that world was extraordinary, but I surely don’t want or even hope that it gets nominated, especially in a year when SCI-FI was at its best(District 9 and Star Trek).
And Frank…a classic plot can be VERY cliche when mishandled. Such was the case in many instances in Avatar.
Sam Worthington’s performance was spectacular.
Michael- I agree that classic can become cliche very easily… I just disagree with you that Avatar was mishandled.
Thats the great thing about opinions- we can all have our own.
Yeah, but what was that dialect? Australian Raging Bull? I was consistently distracted by it.
A person who is distracted by an accent in a movie like Avatar clearly has issues.
Sigourney Weaver really wasn’t that good.
@wtf – So people have issues cuz an actor can’t stick to one accent? That’s not “issues”, that’s “Bad Acting”. Get over yourself.
There was no “variance” in Sam Worthington’s accent. It didn’t vary. Not sure why that was raised. It wasn’t classic “American” and that seems to be a problem with some people. Why? What’s wrong with Aussie Raging Bull in the year 2154? Why on earth would that be a problem for anyone, unless your agenda is to only accept “American” accents…
Totally agree with you here. In the end a Best picture has to be something that is a beacon of the times we live in, something that will be considered a comment on society like up in the air or a milestone in technology evolution like avatar. either way, I think Up in The Air should win only because the real world is more important than the fun one in our minds.
While I loved Avatar, I think that District 9 should be in the Best Picture race instead, but that Avatar should have a lock on any special effects awards.
Inglorious Basterds was OK, but was not the movie the previews made it seem to be, and was pretty darn slow in many sections… like a Tarantino movie with the snappy dialog mostly removed. The guy who played the main Nazi definitely deserves and Oscar, though.
In the end I would choose Precious as my Best Picture of the year. It was not the easiest movie ever to watch, and I understand why it might not win… but I think it deserves it.
While I really enjoyed Up in the Air, and think that it is a great reflection on the world we live in now, I feel like the ending is enough to kick it out of Best Picture standing… to me at least. It is a very good movie… just not Best Picture in my world.
I also honestly find all the surprise that Avatar is doing well a bit baffling… who actually bets against James Cameron now? The only slight mistake of his career in the last number of years is the Abyss, and even that movie was excellent if you see the Directors Cut… the theatrical cut removed a ton of scenes, and a very pivotal theme got downplayed because of it.
I freaking love the Abyss!
Amen Frank! Amen. A film like District 9 proves that you don’t have to sacrifice storytelling over special effects and technological achievement. It’s quite capable to have both a greatly written, well crafted storyline and an innovative visual and technical accomplishment. The fact that I’ve seen a movie that does that this year prevents me from cutting Avatar a break for is rather unoriginal and simplistic story.
And don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Avatar immensely and consider it to be a technological marvel that should hopefully usher in a whole new era of filmmaking. And unlike many of Avatar’s detractors I’m not someone suffers from genre bias and outright dismiss it simply because it’s a sci-fi epic. But I ultimately I think it’s too much style over substance.
I also think District 9 sends a great message that you can make a sci-fi blockbuster without busting the bank to do so.
I don’t even want to think about how much they spent on Transformers 2, but I truly think District 9 bested in in every way when it comes to special effects.
I think it is so cool that they could make a movie like D9 that not only looks great, but is also substantive when it comes to story.
With Avatar, it was more like ‘okay concept executed beautifully’, which is admirable in its own merits. I enjoyed it immensely and would re-watch it, but best picture of the year/decade? Not quite.
I still think District 9 and Up are better films with more original stories, and I also agree that D9′s visuals look phenomenal for how little they cost ($30 mil).
The Abyss WAS good. Very underrated, and I don’t think Cameron has ever had a misstep. District 9 was good, but why anyone doesn’t admit that it degenerated into a standard ‘one man’ action flick with the father and son aliens becoming all too human and cuddly, I’ll never know.
check out Piranha 2. that’s somethin JC does not want to ever think about again. besides that, no, hes got nothing else bad
My only real problem with District 9 is that it couldn’t get a good direction. Like I didn’t know if I was suppose to be watching it as a normal action film or if it was a documentary film. I understand the whole documentary thing being in the beginning to help introduce the characters and what’s going on, but as soon as he got infected it should have either been one or the other. Neil tried to play both worlds and that became distracting for me. That’s my only problem with District 9, which I also believe deserves to be nominated with Avatar.
You probably will see up in the air win the big one and Jeff Bridges after a forty year career with four nominations win best actor for Crazy Heart
Why do you people not like Avatar? I am seriously curious and not being rude. I went and saw it yesterday and thought it was amazing. Do I think it should win Best Picture? Well, I don’t know, cuz I haven’t seen Invictus or Up in the Air or The Hurt Locker. But the movie was spectacular and entertaining. The cussing was a bit over the top, and some dialogue was cringeworthy, but all in all, I was entertained and the CGI was phenomenal. It actually looked like it took James Cameron five years to make it.
We don’t dislike it, it’s just shocking how people are so hypnotized by the initial glee to want it to be nominated in the Best Picture category.
I’ll respond even though I don’t HATE Avatar. I liked it as escapist entertainment but found it seriously lacking in any depth (beyond visual wonder). Technical categories should hope they have films this good, but to me, the Best Picture needs to be about more than technical expertise. There needs to be authentic performances that pull the viewer into the characters, clear relatiionships between director-actor-audience. Avatar was not complete in this respect.
Oh, ok. Thanks guys. I see your points. I thought the storyline was good, much better than what I was expecting based on what I had heard from critics, but the performances were not there for me. But the special effects are no doubt amazing. Should it win BP for that, well no. But like I said, I have not seen the other BP nominees.
People keep making it seem like the visuals are what made it so amazing. It has gotten great reviews, but none of the top critics would give it an ‘A’ simply on visuals (then Transformers 2 would also get an ‘A’) The movie itself was amazing. The story was classic, and you ended up caring about the characters, it took you to this lush world, it was simply stunning. It’s also become quite a cultural phenomenon (everyone has seen it/is going to see it) and with 800 million in 2 weeks worldwide, it’s immensly popular. Almost everyone who has seen it has said it is spectacular. These factors are whats going to give the movie an oscar nom and possibly a win
I agree completely…the visuals “enhanced” the story. The movie wasn’t “about” the visuals.
First, not everyone has seen it or is definitely going to see it. Even if that was true, that doesn’t make it a good movie deserving of a best picture nom. If that was the case, we would be handing an Oscar to Christopher Weitz for New Moon since that is the biggest cultural phenomenon of the year. Second, not almost everyone who has seen it thinks it is spectacular (read all the posts before and after yours). It seems a pretty even split between love it/hate it
I agree that the technology was mind blowing, the story (all though old) WAS great, and the characters gave it much emotion. However, we need to remember that the best picture winner should be the BEST PICTURE of the year. I have been waiting for Avatar for over a year, and it met my expectations, but I am still having trouble deciding which is better: Avatar or District 9. Many people I know seem to have have it right: Avatar has the tech, the hype, the box office to make it win bp but District 9 was better in the storyline, emotions department and acting (and both had similar themes and story lines). But I can see Avatar winning, whether it deserves it is a matter of opinion
film like this relies heavily on advertising. it is a hit and run film. Of course everyone will see it right away. Couldn’t stomach it more than once though. Even you lovers of this would have to agree, 3 hours once, was enough. Great movies should be repeatable and stand the test of time. but thanks for letting the big-wigs convince you of what you should like and contributing to the rich getting richer;) peace!
Amy, sorry to break it, but New Moon currently stands at the #5 cultural phenomenom of the year, after Transformers, Avatar, Harry Potter and some Bloody Prince, and UP. New Moon may have a chance to move into the #4 slot, past UP, but Avatar is without doubt going to be #1 film of 2009.
It was Pocahontas in space. Plus didn’t do anything new special effect or creatively we’ve seen much better all this decade. Jar Jar Binx had more details than most of Avatar’s beast.
You have got to be retarded.
JP what movie were you watching? It certainly wasn’t Avatar if you’re comparing its creatures to JarJar Binks. Wow. The correct procedure is: remove head from sphincter, THEN comment.
I have to laugh at all the people who are talking about plot and character and acting and cliche, yet they all run to see “Transformers”. Were they going for plot and not special effects? Reading all these comments is very entertaining. It just shows that any fool with a computer can be a critic.
@Robe
“LOL look at me! Everyone’s opinions don’t matter because (and I have no proof) that all the people here hating on Avatar watched Transformers (which if I must remind everyone, had a Hurr Durr plot). Ohohoho, watch as I moronically make a last statement that certainly pertains to ME! Gosh I’m smart.”
Jerome… ?! Are you 12?
I would be really disappointed if Avatar won, so put me in the Up in the Air camp, if that is in fact how it all shakes out. I have no problem with Avatar being nominated–its groundbreaking achievements are beyond dispute. But other films, LOTR being the best example, which have pushed the technology front further that have been honored by the Academy have also had the emotional heft of great storytelling.
I’m not an Avatar hater at all. I think it’s a great, eye popping spectacle. But I think perspective should be kept in check.
I can see your point. It was really great, but winning best picture when compared to previous winners like LOTR, not so much.
I would agree with this assessment except that this is an apples to oranges comparison. LOTR is not an original story, and the characters, landscapes, even terrain are all described in vivid detail in a piece of literature. Tolkien actually wrote the entire language of Elvish to use in his stories! I think it’s important to remember that Cameron had to start from scratch on everything.
Well, I don’t think it matters. Either the film stands on its own merits or it doesn’t. I don’t think we should lower the bar just because Cameron had to start from scratch. Your point is well taken, but I guarantee you most people who have seen LOTR have not read the books. And yet still the films are immensely popular amongst the public and critics.
To be perfectly honest, I’m not wild about either Up in the Air or Avatar winning. I loved Up in the Air, but I’m not sure I love it enough to win Best Pic. But, I am and have always been first and foremost a fan of great stories and scripts. So my bias will tend to always go to the film that honors that above anything else. Having said that, I have enormous admiration for what Cameron has achieved.
But since Avatar’s ‘groundbreaking achievements’ are due to CGI, shouldn’t they be celebrated in the CGI category?
I haven’t had the chance to see Up in the Air, but from previous posts stating that the biggest thing against Avatar is the lack of a great story, I give it the edge for Best Picture.
You shouldn’t dismiss “The Hurt Locker” that easily just because it’s box office gross wasn’t that great. Especially not now when it’ll be released on DVD next week.
I agree, I just saw that it just made my Top 10 Films of the decade bumping off The 40 Year Old Virgin.
The Hurt Locker was one of the most captivating movies I’ve seen in a long time. It was 2.5 hours long and it didn’t drag on at all. I felt the fear of the characters who could’ve been killed at any moment. I think this movie will get bigger with word of mouth and all the great reviews.
Just saw Up in the Air, it was a really amazing movie, I think it could edge out Avatar for best picture, and don’t forget to check out The Hurt Locker on DVD Ja. 12.
no, you should dismiss hurt locker for all its inaccuracies of what it’s like in iraq. yes, iraq is that horrific but the storyline sucked. only thing good about it is the performance of the main actor and having it actually look like they were in the streets of iraq from what i remember
Interesting, but I reject the idea that “Hollywood” has a set of “values” that are represented by films. Values is one of the most tossed around and abused words in our culture today. And you’ve just added to the list of misrepresentations of the word.
testify!
This.
Up in the Air just wasn’t that good. Great acting, great directing, great concept but an overall disappointing (and somewhat pointless) story. Hurt Locker is a much better film than Up in the Air.
For me, Avatar was by far and away the best film this year. Here’s my list.
1. Avatar
2. District 9
3. Hurt Locker
4. Basterds
5. 500 Days of Summer
I agree about Up in the Air. It could’ve been great but just wasn’t. It had the potential to really say something and just went nowhere.
It was a snapshot of the times. Where should it have gone?
Completely agree.
If we’re talking about any SciFi movie having a chance at getting a best picture nom, I think it should go to District 9 over Avatar. The visuals were amazing, the story was fantastic, the acting blew me away (especially for a man who had never done any major acting before), and while the story was based on lots of other things that came before it, I never felt like I was watching “Pochahontas in space,” or “Dances with Wolves in space.” I agree with the person who said Avatar SHOULD win the technical awards, but I don’t think it has the whole package that should include superb acting and engrossing storyline.
Avatar and D9 both deserve nominations. I don’t think there should be a limit on the number of sci-fi films nominated. A quality film is a quality film no matter the genre.
I just saw Avatar. To *me* (and my whole family disagrees) this movie did not live up to its hype. I was not “captivated”. I did not think the special effects were so stunning that I could not tell the effects from real life. In particular, I thought the “Animated” (navi) Sam Worthington was far less expressive than real life version. And the story was as predictable as a highway in Kansas. The overwhelming feeling I had, while watching it was –”I am watching an expensive movie”. That is not exactly being captivated.
But.. it was colorful and “popped”. People like “eye candy” and so this shallow bit of cinema that is not really as good as it is hyped… will probably win a bunch of awards.
Charles, while I respect your opinion I would have to disagree. Avatar has it’s flaws but overall it is an incredibly compelling film. Beneath all the glitz and spectacle of the CGI there are story nuances that are getting overlooked. I personally found Zoe Saldana’s performance to be outstanding and I truly connected with the relationship between her character and Sam Worthington’s. The film is not “shallow” as you stated above and I think that many people are belittling the story simply because they found the world (and concept) too bizarre. It’s a shame.
well said, sir!
Here’s my two cents:
I agree that Avatar should be a top front-runner for best picture. Should it win? I don’t know. I haven’t seen all of the other nominated movies.
I agree with TJ that Avatar is an “incredibly compelling film.” I’ve seen the movie three times now with different groups of people. In each instance, everyone that I saw the movie with unanimously agreed that the movie made them FEEL something. Some friends of mine couldn’t stop talking about their anger towards the corporate destruction of the natural world while others gushed over the small, while incredibly epic, moments whith Jake learing to live like the navi (i.e. when jake killed the antelope-like animal and thanked the animal for providing its body).
My mother had tears in her eyes when the paralized Jake first entered his avatar body, and as a result, ran for the first time.
I liked the coming of age subplot in which Jake, who is described by Netiri at the beginning as a “child,” finally finds his place in the world.
My point is that all of the things that moved me, my friends, and my family had nothing to do with the special effects and ground-breaking technology. Yes, the technology enhanced those moments, but isn’t that the reason for the technology?
Avatar clearly speaks to people on an emotional level. I’ve heard comments from many people. The 3-d technology, for the first time in live action cinema, isn’t used as a novelty but as a means to fully tranport the audience to another time and place. My friends have either seen it more than once or are planning on seeing it again.
Avatar is setting records, opening a whole new technological door for cinema, creating a dialogue among its viewers, immersing the audience in another world, moving the audience emionally in many different ways, and rejuvenating an industry.
How can this not be a front runner for best picture?
Just my two cents…
Moved? I was moved by the awful delivery of the actors and the horrible one-dimensional characters that were presented. “It’s not over while I’m breathing! Grr!!” Said the angry kill-everything bad guy with no conscious. How original. Awful.
Justin, beautifully said. I, too, was drawn into this movie in a way I seldom have experienced. For me the emotional impact outweighed the technological/visual.
Thank you!
Justin, I agree completely. Glad to hear that others were effected on an emotional level.